Hate Speech and Democracy

Ambadas Haribhau Dharrao died yesterday. He died in no ordinary manner but as a victim of the hate crimes in the state of Maharashtra. For Raj Thackeray this was the result of him venting out his feelings against the North-Indians while for Ambadas’s family this meant the future denial of their only source of income and a loved one.

It is not amusing to hear and read the way death and hate is politicised in this Nation of ours. For those in the seats of power and what we call ‘rajnaitik shadyantra’ (playing political games), this is just another issue to rake up at a desired fora. A reason to be read in the paper, come in the eyes of the public and yes, get some votes. But the loss of lives doesn’t seem to bother those inciting the violence. When they are to be arrested, further violence by them mars the arrest. Not strange in the Country like India where even the law and order machinery is in political hands.

Raj Thackeray seems to place himself as a buffoon of sorts. What should have been done is that he should’ve been arrested the moment he made his speeches that incited violence.

I think this is the plight of the Indian Democratic system. The price we have to pay for being ruled by the people.

Top Clicks

1 comment

I may not be a regular visitor of the blog, but a chance visit, to put it mildly, gave me a shock. A blog which seems to based on human rights and democracy (that too by a law student) laments the tragedy of being “ruled by people”. An unsolicited and unfounded phrase. Perhaps, this tacit hypocrisy can be seen as a creeping middle-class discomfiture of popular dissent and will. I would suggest the author to look at the comments of Mr. Thackeray and critical reaction in more respectable blogs like lawandotherthings (by Venkatesan). Of course, I am not in complete agreement with Mr. Thackeray. But I certainly do not think that his politics indicates that the malady of this democracy of ours is the rule of the people, but rather certain strains of unrecognized modern political phenomenon which have nothing to do with traditional religion or common sense of people (I would suggest a close reading of post-colonial literature, especially Ashis Nandy to the author).
Another observation. In the post titles Mea Culpa, apart from a general strain of rhetoric, there has been an inaccrurate analysis of the Supreme Court’s decisions (may be because of a “lazy sunday”). To suggest a correction, Affirmative Action in the Constitution is not merely to correct “historical wrongs”, but reflects a larger project of representation and participation for sections satisfying the requirements of Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4). Though I agree with the author that an apology (and more importantly workable solutions- and not merely symbolic and parochial steps- see sainath’s oped in hindu a couple of days back) is required.